Honorable Forum:
Because I share Czech's concerns and goals, I will attempt to briefly (but
inadequately) piggy-back upon some of his points and emphasize what I see as
some "elephants-in-the-room" between the lines.
I, too, find it increasingly necessary to write and speak "in quotes." This
is a regrettable necessity, borne out of a habit of making simple things
convoluted, increasingly in the name of "science," and because spin-meisters
in the broader culture find it convenient to create more confusion than
clarity.
It is particularly unfortunate that the language has gone down this drain
(as it were) and much terminology has so many, even conflicting "meanings"
that distinctions have not merely become blurred, they have been lost. Any
"discipline" without crystal-clear terminology qualifies, it seems to me, as
undisciplined. Yet, no discipline, no realm of human communitation
(speaking from my perhaps too-limited knowledge of American English) seems
immune. Therefore, all must be excused.
Okay, I exaggerate a little, and I am equally an offender as offended. But
is my point relevant, "on-point" or not?
"Ecology," "environment," "environmentalism," "development," "growth,"
"economy," ad infinitum, are only a few examples of the crumbling structure
and discipline of the modern lexicon--and, to an unfortunate extent,
"science" as well.
So what IS meant by a "trade-off" between "biodiversity, ecosystem services,
and development?"
I stick by my motto of the last 53 years: "To reconcile the needs and works
of humankind with those of the earth and its life."
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Request for Feedback from People Involved in
Conservati on and/or Development
Dear Maya and ECOLOGGERS,
It is truly exciting to hear about your survey initiative. A group of 60
ESA members has been proposing an ESA position on economic growth, and
numerous other professional societies have already adopted positions or are
considering them. So your initiative is very timely.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I will provide specific feedback through the channels you have identified.
However, I will also provide some general comments here, since this is on
ongoing ECOLOG topic.
Most of the positions on economic growth that have been taken or considered
have been crafted with great care to distinguish between “economic growth”
and “development.” Economic growth is known to the public and policy makers
as increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the
aggregate. It’s become almost synonymous with increasing GDP, a concurrent
measure of production, income, and expenditure. “Development” has had a
more nebulous usage in academia, public dialog, and policy circles, and has
sometimes been conflated with economic growth, greatly complicating
macroeconomic reform efforts. More recently, though, “development” has
evolved to have qualitative connotations that are largely independent of the
quantity of goods and services produced. Even most conventional economists
have come to agree that GDP is not a good indicator of development.
Ecological economists have worked hard to advance the distinction between
economic growth and economic development (as Daly and Farley have done with
their bellwether textbook) so that there is clarity in public dialog
pertaining to macroeconomic policy goals. And see for example the position
taken by the United States Society for Ecological Economics:
http://www.ussee.org/PDFs/Position%20of%20the%20United%20States%20Society%20for%20Ecological%20Economics%20on%20Economic%20Growth.pdf
Professional natural resources societies have likewise taken care to verify
this important distinction. See for example the position taken by the
Society for Conservation Biology’s North America Section:
http://www.conbio.org/Sections/NAmerica/NAS-SCBPositionOnEconomicGrowth.cfm
So my input, both to the tradeoff-survey initiative and to the ESA
membership and board, is that this distinction between growth and
development is crucial to macroeconomic policy reforms for environmental
protection. “Conservation,” in the sense that nature conservation helps to
maintain an aspect of the quality of life, could easily be considered an
aspect of “development,” and therefore the two goals could be considered
mutually reinforcing. But for purposes of public policy, ecologists have
described how economic growth is quite antithetical to biodiversity
conservation (as an example of “conservation”) based upon the ecological
principle of competitive exclusion and the laws of thermodynamics.
Also, conclusions pertaining to the relationship between biodiversity and
ecosystem services may be extremely elusive. Because ecosystem services are
by definition a function of biodiversity (along with abiotic ecosystem
components), then ceteris paribus, more biodiversity would equate to more
ecosystem services. Yet those services, in order to actually serve the
human economy, require the usage of the biodiversity fund. If too many
services are required, i.e. beyond the maximum sustainable rate, then we can
expect the use of biodiversity to enter into a phase of liquidation, in
which case both biodiversity and ecosystem services will decline. (And of
course this has been the case with many natural capital stocks and ecosystem
services.) So if we emphasized the first point in this paragraph, we could
conclude that there is no trade-off between biodiversity and ecosystem
services, but if we emphasized the latter point, we could conclude that
there is a trade-off.
In any event, this is all intended as constructive feedback, and I greatly
appreciate your work on this compelling matter.
Cheers, Brian
Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
and
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
-- Maya Kapoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Ecologgers,
We are developing a survey on attitudes towards tradeoffs in conservation
and development, and we would like your help. This is an opportunity to
express your opinion about compelling and timely issues. Your participation
will allow us to design a survey using actual opinions held by professionals
in your field. We are interested in the opinions of anyone who identifies
as being professionally involved in conservation or development projects (or
both) in any capacity, including through academic research. We would like
participation to be as inclusive and representative as possible, and
encourage you to forward this email to any other potential participants you
know around the world, as well as to relevant listservs.
Specifically, we are interested in whether you think tradeoffs exist in
relation to biodiversity, ecosystem services, and development. Ecosystem
services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, such as fresh
water, disease regulation, and aesthetic value.
If you are interested in helping us, please answer the following questions.
The first two are necessary for us to be able to use the information you
provide, but the other four can be answered to whatever extent you
choose. Answers
can be in any form, such as lists or paragraphs:
1. What is your profession?
· Do you work primarily in conservation, development, or both?
2. How did you hear about this solicitation?
· From an individual or a list? If from an email list, which one?
3. What positive or negative relationships exist between biodiversity
and ecosystem services?
4. What positive or negative relationships exist between conservation
and development?
5. Who benefits from conservation?
· What are the social benefits of conservation and where/when do they
occur?
6. Who does not benefit from conservation?
We would like to know your opinion regarding conservation and development
tradeoffs. While this is not a survey, we will incorporate some of the
responses that we receive into a survey to be conducted by Advancing
Conservation in a Social Context (ACSC, www.tradeoffs.org). ACSC is a
research initiative focused on tradeoffs in conservation. At this stage we
would like to collect any and all opinions on this topic. If you have an
opinion, no matter how unorthodox or obvious you think it is, we would like
to read it! Your response will be kept anonymous to all but Maya Kapoor,
the research assistant for this project. Your email address will be saved
so that we can invite you to participate in the final survey once it has
been designed, but your participation now will be helpful whether or not you
choose to take the completed survey later. We will also use your email
address to send you results from the completed survey.
Please email your response to Maya at [EMAIL PROTECTED] by
Monday, June 10th, 2008. In addition, feel free to contact Maya if you
would like more information about our survey methods and about ACSC
generally. Besides email, Maya can be reached at:
Arizona State University
School of Life Sciences
PO Box 4601
Tempe, AZ 85287
Thank you very much for your assistance and participation.
Sincerely,
ACSC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
